ONE OF THE AXIOMS OF AMERICAN POLITICS is that you can't legislate
morality. In the aftermath of the impeachment debacle, that lesson has been
reinforced with an exclamation point.

But what do we really mean when we say that we don't wish to impose our
morals on others?

As a religious minority, American Jews understand this question more as a
matter of defense than offense. We're a lot more worried about someone
else's religious values being foisted upon ourselves than anything else.

Yet the line that runs between unfairly imposing a subjective version of
morality and merely standing up for right against wrong isn't always so
clear. Americans -- and Jews -- seem to have widely divergent opinions about
what kinds of public and private behavior we can't abide these days.

The outcome of Monica-gate seems to have clearly established a precedent
that sexual misconduct (and related perjury and coverup charges) is not a
hanging offense in late 20th-century America. And if the Clinton case
finally puts an end to the institution of the Office of the Special
Prosecutor, I will cheer.

But looking around the political landscape, I would conclude that though
our moral standards have changed, moral crusading isn't limited to the
likes of Kenneth Starr and the House Republicans.

Earlier in this century, the great national experiment with banning alcohol
-- another attempt to enforce a code of moral conduct -- was an even greater
disaster than an impeachment trial. Prohibition established hypocrisy as
our national religion and gave organized crime increased power and wealth.

No serious person would ever think of trying to ban liquor, wine or beer again.

But how then do we account for the almost religious fervor with which other
legal substances are regarded? Some of the anti-smoking rhetoric heard
nowadays bears a strange resemblance to the sort of things the Women's
Christian Temperance Union said about drinking 100 years ago in its crusade
to ban demon rum.

And just as the temperance movement could not resist bringing government
into its plans, anti-smoking crusaders are on the same track. The Clinton
administration has taken a strong stand against tobacco. The federal
government and many states are suing cigarette makers for the cost of
health care for people who have diseases caused by smoking.

These suits
continue to proliferate even though the gruesome effect of smoking-induced
diseases probably saves the government money in the long run, since the
victims don't collect Social Security and pensions. And let's not forget
that the government is already making a profit off addicted smokers via the
large tax revenues that pour in from sales of tobacco products.

Personally, I despise smoking as a vile, anti-social habit and am allergic
to smoke, but at times it seems as if anti-smoking moralizing has replaced
prudery as the moral crusade of our time.

But at the same time that we are marching in lockstep as a society against
tobacco, another issue has popped up to prove just what hypocrites many of
us are.

Gambling, an addiction that causes as much devastation to individuals and
families, isn't merely socially acceptable in a way that smoking is not. It
has become a panacea for every city and state government in the land. Our
legislators have come to depend on state lotteries -- a device that is the
most regressive tax on the poor and the middle class imaginable -- to
balance the budget.

Pennsylvania is just the latest state to seriously consider legalizing
riverboat gambling. Planners hope the casinos will bring prosperity to
Philadelphia. That may or may not be true (I doubt it), but what is certain
is that the state will profit from the suffering of families of addicted
gamblers.

My libertarian instincts tell me that if people want to gamble as a form of
entertainment, I shouldn't stand in their way. But I'm also not comfortable
with our government acting as a corner bookie. And why aren't we
considering the social costs of gambling in the same way we do for smoking?
Will we allow bankrupt gamblers to sue Indian casinos or the state lottery
authority in the same way we have applauded lawsuits by chain smokers
against the tobacco companies?

Has moral relativism become such a powerful force in the United States that
we have come to believe that it is okay to have sex with an intern and to
promote gambling, but it's immoral to smoke?

I think all smokers -- especially my friends -- should quit. But what does it
say about us as a country that we seem more concerned with whether teens
are smoking (as if anything Clinton says would persuade them not to try it)
than about teen pregnancy?

What do we as a faith-based community have to say about this crazy quilt of
beliefs? Maybe I'm not listening closely enough, but I'm not hearing a
coherent answer to that question.

Despite the public's understandable revulsion against prudery, which may
have driven the pro-Clinton poll numbers, I believe that morality and
religious values can still have a powerful and positive influence on our
nation's politics and policy.

Dangerous buffoons such as Rev. Jerry Falwell do not and should not carry
the standard of religious morality into the world of politics. Sen. Joseph
Lieberman's speech about the president's conduct last summer was a defining
moment. Reaction to the speech showed that Americans were prepared to
listen to talk about values from a specifically Jewish point of view.

Lest we forget, religious values were in the forefront during the struggle
for civil rights in this country. Religious leaders like Rev. Martin Luther
King Jr. were not shy about putting forth a moral vision for the nation,
nor should they have been. Jews like Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel were
there besides King, using the same sort of imagery.

Faith-based values drove our campaign to free Soviet Jewry and could do the
same for the fight against religious persecution around the globe today.
They also ought to inform our stands on social issues like gambling as well
as poverty.

Speaking up for religious and moral values is nothing for Jews to be ashamed
of.

02/11/99:Of Human Rights and Wrongs02/05/99:The Bibiphobia Conspiracy01/27/99: Israel and Us: Putting Up or Shutting Up01/20/99: The High Cost of Jewish Education01/14/99The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Have American Jews finally arrived?01/06/99 Israel: The Millennial Theme Park12/30/98 Memo to Bubba: Israel ain't Monica, keep yer hands off!12/22/98 Calling Things by Their Right Names12/12/98 Good news...and bad news11/05/98 What price free-speech?10/30/98: Haunted by the past10/23/98: American Jewry: Ethnicity or faith?10/15/98: Converts, saints and Jews:
Confronting the story of Edith Stein10/02/98: Bibi: No Messiah, just a politician 9/11/98: Politics ‘98: By their enemies shall ye know them9/04/98: Pro-terror groups' cry of discrimination rings hollow8/28/98: Defending the undefendable;Or, the AJCongress should stop wasting Jewish resources8/21/98: Is 'Jewish journalism' an oxymoron?8/14/98: Holding on to our heroes 8/07/98: Three strikes, but they continue to play7/23/98: Zionist vs Zionist7/17/98: Summer news stories: Large and small7/13/98: A step closer to school choice6/26/98: The Holocaust Museum and Mort Klein6/12/98: What price Jewish education? 6/5/98:
Ten books for a long, hot summer:
A serious vacation reading list for Jewish history lovers
5/29/98:
Double standards here and there:
Hypocrisy raises its ugly head in Israel and the U.S.5/26/98: Hartford Seminary tangle points to bigger issues5/22/98:The importance of being Bibi5/14/98:
The ‘dream palace' of the anti-Zionists:
Hartford Seminary controversy has historic roots4/26/98: All-rightniks versus the alarmists:
Focussing on the Jewish bottom line4/13/98:Of ends and means and victims 4/5/98: Hang up on Albright3/29/98: Bigshots or activists?: Clinton's three clerics return from China3/27/98: Will American Jews help Clinton push Israel into a corner?3/22/98: Anti-Semitism then and now3/15/98: Still searching for Jews at the opera3/11/98: Remembering Eric Breindel3/8/98: Getting lost in history3/5/98: Follow the money to Hamas2/22/98: Re-writing "Anne Frank" - A distorted legacy
2/15/98: Religious persecution is still a Jewish issue
2/6/98: A lost cause remembered (the failure of the Bund)
2/1/98: Economic aid is not in Israel's interest
1/25/98: Jews are news, and a fair shake for Israel is hard to find